SteveCalley

SteveCalley

I think I can answer part of this! I know for a fact that the authorities were not looking for survivors at this point, but for bodies. The initial search was meant to be a search and rescue operation (hence the contaminating of the crime scene), whilst the search for the 'Last Four' was a matter of locating the corpses (and any evidence they were thought to bear). I remember reading that as a method of corpse detection (is that what it's called?) they had resorted to attaching meat hooks to wooden poles so as to stab into the snow and see what came up. I don't remember how successful this was. I read in Matveyeva's book though that the unfortunate parents of the 'Last Four' still kept a glimmer of hope that they had escape and were alive in a settlement somewhere in the Urals, although still unaccounted for. Honestly though, I think they knew they were long gone, but that they still had some hope that their child was alive somewhere :(

As for the police who had no real connection to the students, I think they thought that there was some kind of foul play at hand after they found the first bodies. I believe they were much more careful in dealing with the crime scene the second time around, and that in it itself seems to show that the authorities knew that they were dealing with some external influence on the case rather than deaths caused purely by weather conditions alone. As for whether they were suspects of murder, I can't help but think that the thought of the 'Last Four' being involved with the deaths of their comrades must've crossed their minds. As far as I know though, not many (official) police reports or documents have been released to date– or at least have been translated to English. EDIT: Let's not forget that the 'Last Four' had been missing for not days, but months at this point. Considering that missing persons cases are statistically less likely to be resolved after the 48h window in an urban setting, imagine what that would have been like for the Dyatlov group. I highly doubt that whatever police forces involved thought that they had managed to escape at all, perhaps the fact that they were aware that they had all died lowered the morale of the search group? I don't know. I can't speak on behalf of foul play coming from within the government, though.

It is still perfectly possible that someone in the police force was aware of what had happened. That being said, if we're going full Soviet-spy novel theory and we assume it was the work of any type of secret service, I don't know how much simple investigators would have known about the case. High-ranking officials– maybe, but not the men sent out for corpse detection.

I read in one of the russian articles where the reporter was interviewing one of the search teams leaders, and he stated how he found Dubinina with an avalanche probe/pole fitted with a specific attachment for bringing up flesh on the end. Subsequently thats how they located the Rav4.

Murder would explain leaving the tent, an orderly march to the tree line, and remaining there instead of returning earlier. It could also explain the injuries.

However, murder theories suffer from four problems.

1. There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

2. They were off course in the middle of nowhere. How would someone else know where they were?

3. It was a long way from anyone else. The closest Mansi village was 60 miles. The closest hiking group was 30 or more miles, and so on.

4. Their supplies were left alone. Mansi, hikers, escaped prisoners and the like would most likely take their money, alcohol, skis and anything else valuable or useful. It is the middle of winter in Siberia, not a Walmart parking lot. As for special forces, why not just disappear all the evidence instead of risking an investigation?

That the tent contents were undisturbed is evidence against outside human involvement.

Murder would explain leaving the tent, an orderly march to the tree line, and remaining there instead of returning earlier. It could also explain the injuries.

However, murder theories suffer from four problems.

1. There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

2. They were off course in the middle of nowhere. How would someone else know where they were?

3. It was a long way from anyone else. The closest Mansi village was 60 miles. The closest hiking group was 30 or more miles, and so on.

4. Their supplies were left alone. Mansi, hikers, escaped prisoners and the like would most likely take their money, alcohol, skis and anything else valuable or useful. It is the middle of winter in Siberia, not a Walmart parking lot. As for special forces, why not just disappear all the evidence instead of risking an investigation?

That the tent contents were undisturbed is evidence against outside human involvement.

These are all important questions and it is good that we address them one by one.

1. Here we have several factors. It is a sad fact that the first people who came to the site, first assumed that the nine students were still alive and only had problems. Therefore the tent and the immediate area around the tent was not thought of as a crime scene. For this reason, evidence has likely been destroyed. The important factor here is that the Dyatlov group evidently died on the evening of February 1, but several weeks passed before a search was made. The tent was only found on February 26, that is almost a month after. Thus tracks made by the attackers would have disappeared in that time, especially since the attackers would likely have used skis. Most ski tracks made by the narrow sports skies used by the trekkers were erased, and tracks from wider mountain skies used by both local people and trained special forces would most likely be completely erased because wide mountain skies does not sink so deeply into the snow.

An absence of tracks from the attacking group is therefore not evidence that there was not an attack.

The conclusion that the Dyatlov pass incident was a crime can nevertheless be drawn with reason. The fact that they had gone far away from the tent in the cold and without proper clothing or gloves, is proof that some mortal danger forced them out of the tent. Careful consideration of the forensic evidence from the bodies and their injuries shows that their injuries can only have been caused by an attack by other humans.

2. When the Dyatlov group set out, they had made no secret of the fact that they planned to go to the Otorten peak. Thus their intent was known. There are two possibilities if they were indeed murdered - which every piece of evidence indicates they were.

- Possibility A: The Dyatlov group was killed as a result of a decision which was made already when they declared that they wanted to go to an area where they would observe something they were not supposed to see or know about.

- Possibility B: The decision to kill the Dyatlov group was made when they had entered an area where someone did not want them to be.

Until someone speaks out, or some irrefutable evidence is found, it cannot be determined whether possibility A) or B) corresponds to the fact. But the Dyatlov group had announced where they wanted to go. This means that if there was some activity or some places in the area at or around Kholat Syakhl which the nine hikers were not allowed to witness or visit the arrival of the Dyatlov group was known by those who might have wanted to prevent the presence of other people at all cost.

3. It is seriously mistaken that the camp was 60 kilometers from everyone else. It has been proven that the Mansi were in the area. In addition, they were active very close to the camp:

"A Mansi chum (definition) was observed North-East from where Dyatlov group pitched their tent on the night of January 30. A trail leading to the chum was passing 200 feet from where they camped."

So it is misinformation to say that there were no other people in the area. The Mansi were present in the very area where the nine trekkers chose to camp.

Svetlana Oss in her book "Don't go there" also refers to this chom or choom. A member of the first rescue team testifies to the Mansi presence in the immediate area. On page 169 Svetlana Oss refers the testimony:

"One of the rescue team, then a cadet Khamsa Sinyukaev, recalls about tribal people coming out of the woods into the open near the slope as helicopters flew by. These were not those to take part in the rescue operation but others, who Khamsa called "the Khanty" or "the Mansi." According to Sinyukaev, they would quickly come on their reindeer to trade golden sand and valuable furs for food, vodka and bullets from the pilots. Therefore, the tribal people were in the area and it didn't take them long to show up at any moment."

Does this prove that the Mansi were responsible? No, by no means. It only proves that the Mansi were in the area.

It is very important that to remember that we must never accuse anyone of having committed murder without incontrovertible proof. It is a good principle that one must be considered innocent until proven guilty, and it has not been proven who were responsible for the death of the nine hikers at Kholat Syakhl. The Russian forensic expert Natalia Sakharova, who has worked for 25 years with crime investigation, is convinced that the Dyatlov pass tragedy was murder and that the murderers were professionals.

- To state who the killers were, is speculative until backed up with very precise evidence of the identity of the attackers.

- To state that the nine students were indeed murdered, is completely reasonable given the evidence we have.

4. The supplies of the Dyatlov group were left alone. This is fully understandable, and it shows that the attackers were not interested in robbery. The fact that nothing was taken from the tent, means that the reason for the attack had to to with the Dyatlov group's presence in the area and nothing else: The nine young and innocent students were killed because they had entered an area where they were not supposed to be, either because someone were afraid that they might observe something which they were not allowed to know about or because they had entered an area where outsiders were forbidden to go. Both are possible, but we cannot know the motive behind the decision to kill the Dyatlov group. However, we can still judge the evidence - which strongly suggests that this was not an accident.

Lastly, it is reasonable to ask why the nine were not simply shot or just "disappeared." It is tempting to conclude that a cold decision to kill them would mean a quick, efficient kill. But forensic history tells us that things are not so simple. Criminal history, both the history of ordinary crime and state killings, tells us that "accidents," "suicides," "heart attacks" and other seemingly normal or accidental deaths are regularly used by determined killers who want to conceal the fact of murder and make a homicide appear to be a perfectly normal death. The Dyatlov pass incident may more than likely have been such a case. To steal the belongings of the nine hikers would reveal that it was murder, as would wounds from knives or bullets.

It is reasonable to assume that those who attacked the nine hikers forced them out of the tent because they judged that their victims would soon perish in the cold winter night.

Then there are the cuts in their tent. Much has been made of the cuts in the tent, but it is not documented who made the cuts. Moreover, all the knives belonging to the nine students were found in the tents - and these knives were all in their sheaths. The first investigators concluded that the students cut their way out from the tent, but there is absolutely nothing that proves that it happened that way.

When the young and durable students did not die quickly from the cold, the attackers decided that more forceful action was needed to accomplish their mission. Thus they went to physical attack, while they were careful not to leave knife or bullet wounds. The last four who were found had the most severe injuries: Kolevatov, Zolotaryov, Dubinina and Thibeaux-Brignolle were much better dressed than the others. For this reason, they might have survived for days and the attackers could not risk that - they wanted to ensure that all were dead and that they could not leave any messages about what happened. So these last four were killed with greater force, and the autopsy reports also confirm that these suffered the worst injuries. The first five who were found were much less well dressed, and so less force was necessary to dispatch them since the cold completed the mission. Igor Dyatlov had marks on both ankles, with visible abrasions, with hemorrhage into the underlying tissue. This suggests that the leader of the group had been tied, and these marks are one of many injuries that strengthen the conclusion of murder.

What we do not know, is who were responsible for the deaths of nine young people at Kholat Syakhl or what their precise motive was. But we do the relatives and friends of the deceased a major disservice if we deny the obvious reality that it was a cold-blooded murder resulting from a resourceful and determined attack.

Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them. However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact. Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'. I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening. Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see.

Opinions are great and I would encourage any and all to have them. However, alot of what I just read above is pure conjecture presented as if it were fact. Im not seeing key words such as 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'could have', 'possibly' etc which leads me to believe you are 'married' to the theory.

Lets not make this a place of 'your wrongs' and 'Im rights'. I would suggest you create a detailed analysis thread that lays out your entire theory in a slightly less authoritative fashion to be considered by the community.

Remember, one investigator says murder while the lead investigator says ball lightening. Neither hold more weight then the other as far as I can see.

Nothing can be considered a fact until incontrovertibly proven, so it must necessarily remain conjecture until then. So it is.

Still, it may be salutary to bear in mind that we do have evidence. The difficulty is that every piece of evidence is open to interpretation - that is why we have all the often conflicting theories in the absence of definite proof or a confession from someone who knows and is willing to finally talk. Even if the theories are largely conflicting, they all have their proponents.

Admittedly, the very act of analyzing a situation is likely to create opposition from other viewpoints. And then the stalemate continues. We have to admit that the question of what happened on February 1, 1959 has not yet been completely answered even if many books have been written by authors wherein each author claims to have found the answer.

Perhaps we can agree that there is a major watershed:

Between the theories that start from the premise that there was no attack and that the Dyatlov group died as a result of non-criminal but unfortunate circumstances, and on the other hand the theories that start from the premise that the death of the nine students was not an accident but caused by other humans.

It may be proposed that since dead persons do not lie and cannot lie, it is wise to start with the bodies. We might take a cold and detached look at the autopsy reports and ask ourselves:

"If we try our best to analyze all the available forensic evidence and above all the injuries, individually and in the highly significant context of virtually all the members of the Dyatlov group having received various kinds of bodily damage, what do we interpret as more likely - a series of unfortunate coincidences and tragic accidents or that we are dealing with a well-planned murder by unknown but resourceful perpetrators who must have calculated that it served their interests to make the killing look like an accident in the snow?"

Still, any attempt at answering will still be - yes, conjecture - until there is definite proof. There is no way around that. The best we can do is to analyze the evidence and hope that proof will eventually be produced.

.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2). Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

.There is no evidence that anyone else was on that mountain that fateful night. It's speculation that there could have been others.

Even Maslennikov (who leaded the search in the beginning) supposed "somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one". He noticed in his diary (part 2). Absence of footprints is not confirmation of absence of anyone else. No footprints around the tent even we know Dyatlov's group were there.

Hi, Galina, what for tiresomely to think out it? Maslennikov is better than others knew about inaccessibility of this place. How villains and murderers there could come? You can try to reach there. I offered it to you already. In the winter it is especially difficult. It is necessary to be able live some days without calling in the warm house. Very few people is capable of it. Especially it was at that time so.

Absence of traces in general can confirm or deny nothing. However they have found Dyatlov team`s traces, and extraneous traces have not found.It does not speak about that that there was who that still. More likely all back. It is impossible to prove absence. It is possible to prove presence only. Whether there is what that the facts confirming presence of extraneous (villains)? If they are not present, means it is not necessary to think out them.

I think we should not be engaged in interpretations of another's texts (and, especially, thoughts), and available possibilities and knowledge to come nearer to true. It means to confirm that that truth and to specify that does not concern it.Maslennikov could write any reasons and doubts in this diary, but it does not mean that all of them represent the facts.

I think we should not be engaged in interpretations of another's texts (and, especially, thoughts), and available possibilities and knowledge to come nearer to true. It means to confirm that that truth and to specify that does not concern it.Maslennikov could write any reasons and doubts in this diary, but it does not mean that all of them represent the facts.

Masiennikov wrote this in his diary:

"somebody could come from the top. Hands up. Go out one by one".

He did not present his observation as a fact, he simply indicated that it was fully possible given the terrain and the environment.

But.... how they cut their way out of the tent with their hands up? Or was coming out of the tent like a bunch of jack-the-rippers at gun point what did them in?

The thing is that we do not know that they cut their way out of the tent. That was an old assumption: If the tent was cut from the inside, the people who died must have done it. But how can we take that for granted? We do not know whether if the hikers were those who cut the tent, and finally we do not know whether or not the nine left the tent through the cuts.

If anything, the more reasonable assumption is that the students did actually not cut the tent. In fact, no knives were found except for the knives which were found in the tent - and those knives were all still in their sheaths. None of the nine who died, were found with knives.

It's a interesting question about knifes. Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE

Quote

Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students aware of it.

The knives are very interesting.

At this stage, Lev Ivanov had received orders from his superiors to close the case with the conclusion that it had all been an accident. In the final statement when Ivanov declared the case closed, he mentioned Krivonischenko's knife and stated that it had been found in the ravine together with the four last victims.

But that was not the case.

No knives were ever found outside of the tent. It is certain that if any knife had been found, Tempalov would have mentioned it.

Moreover: Krivonischenko's knife was found in the pocket of his windbreaker, which never left the tent.

So everything indicates that Lev Ivanov was under severe pressure to close the case at all cost, and that he had to falsely state that a knife had been found with the bodies even if he knew it was untrue. That was necessary, in order to construct the erroneous conclusion that no other people had been in the area and that the tragic deaths had all been accidents.

It's a interesting question about knifes. Ivanov wrote: RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE CASE

Quote

Near the bodies , Krivonischenko's knife was found

Not only tent has been cut. The decking consisted of 15 cut treetops. But Tempalov didn't mention about this knife in the Protocol inspection bodies detection space neither students aware of it.

The knives are very interesting.

At this stage, Lev Ivanov had received orders from his superiors to close the case with the conclusion that it had all been an accident. In the final statement when Ivanov declared the case closed, he mentioned Krivonischenko's knife and stated that it had been found in the ravine together with the four last victims.

But that was not the case.

No knives were ever found outside of the tent. It is certain that if any knife had been found, Tempalov would have mentioned it.

Moreover: Krivonischenko's knife was found in the pocket of his windbreaker, which never left the tent.

So everything indicates that Lev Ivanov was under severe pressure to close the case at all cost, and that he had to falsely state that a knife had been found with the bodies even if he knew it was untrue. That was necessary, in order to construct the erroneous conclusion that no other people had been in the area and that the tragic deaths had all been accidents.

If we go for the "must be a murder" theory, few of the main questions I see reasonable are: 1. Who is responsible for that brutal act?2. What was the motive?3. Where was/were the murderer/s?4. What happened to their own traces?5. Who is pulling the strings of the investigation and why the participants of the search/investigation had to sign a 25 year prohibition to disclose information.

1. If other human beings are responsible for the Dyatlov Pass incident, which is not easy to prove, and not easy to reject, they should have been aware of the plan. Since Dyatlov didn`t leave any exact coordinates (except that they are heading towards Otorten), and since he changed the route/plan (and arguably had some sort of confrontation? with Zolotoryov, who could have been the second in command), it is highly unlikely to me, that there was someone waiting for them just there. No way for anyone outside the group itself after their departure, to know where they were going. But it all resulted in 9 fatalities, so whoever took care of them, must have been determined to do it. At all costs.

2. For what reason... We can only speculate. Just think about it - what can be the motivation to kill nine people, most of them so young (even Zolotoryov was in a great age - 37), healthy, educated people? Robbery is ruled out. Vendetta is a classic, but in those circumstances… I would say probably not. I find it hardly possible that they all did something terrible during their lifetime to deserve it. Or may be only some of them did. I imply the speculation, that one or some of them were actually agent/s or at least were involved in something regarding that speculation. Of course, you cannot waste only one or just few of them, therefore – all of them. Basically the same goes for the idea, that they entered an area, where they were not wanted, so the crime was not based on previous actions of a group member/s, but just because they were at the wrong place, in the wrong time. Both ways, that brings us to the question:

3. Where was/were the murderers? Since it sounds irrelevant that someone was already waiting for them near Kholat Syakhl, the only reasonable possibility I see, is that someone (or a group of people more likely) was stalking and following them since the beginning of their trip. But we are talking about days of walking/skiing, sharing the same weather condition, physical and mental effort, difficulties etc. With the extra load of trying to be invisible as well as being close to the group so you can chose the right time to do the job. Sounds like too much effort to me. Unless you have some sort of a serious mental issue or a very damn good reason to do it.

4. And what is more interesting, another group of people (even one person) still leaves traces. Yes, an experienced person could hide his traces and could stage the whole crime scene. But since we are talking about a large group of 9 people, well trained to endure and some of them physically well shaped, one of them with a whole World War in his CV, I would go for more than one assassins. Which means a lot more traces to delete on one hand, but less time to stage the scene on the other. If someone murdered the Dyatlov group, we are talking about a specially trained, well equipped assassins, who, with no regret and for a good reason committed a scandalous crime. And how about the Mansi? If they were not involved in the whole happening, is there a chance that they were able to notice the two groups of people? I mean, they live in the area, so it is a good chance that some of them (hunters or no) did. I am not sure whether the investigation was focused on any possible testimony or whether the Mansi were even asked for cooperation, or if they were – to what extent.

5. Why was the signing of 25 years non-disclosure required and why was the access to the region prohibited for several years after the incident? That is a relevant question, if we go for the murderer theory. Of course, it always provokes speculations, that Dyatlov group was indeed assassinated and whatever the reason was, it implied certain time to pass, without anyone being able to go back there. I would say that is possible in favor of a total cleanup of any possible clues or evidence. Who has the capacity to secure that? Inside job? It is like common sense to ask. Meanwhile, we can argue if someone was really interested in doing what is possible to end the case as fast as possible, causing as less as possible transparency and publicity (failed, as far as I see), bury the bodies as well as getting rid of substantial evidence. I would be extremely surprised, if the tent for example, or all personal belongings, clothes and other stuff were given to the families, or if they are still present to this day at all.

Loose}{Cannon hits the nail on the head on this one. Definitely a case of over speculation on this murder subject.

Again, a matter of opinion. Per and all others have held their ground in this discussion quite remarkably and although not everybody agrees with marriage to the murder theory as strongly as Per, his thoughts are highly respected and carry a ton of weight for Camp Murder. His points are concise, supported by existing evidence, and have the added luxury of being possible or probable.